Jump to content
 

tythatguy1312

Members
  • Posts

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tythatguy1312

  1. Well that does answer that question of paperwork, though it only really covers the answer of "why did the E3's exist 20 years before the E2's". That being said, the LB&SC seems to be a draw for theoretical locomotives, particularly as it's inherently well known and home to a number of designs which were flawed to degrees where improvement was possible but not done (E2's, B4X's, I4's, etc). Surely there's a lot of gaps worth filling.
  2. Something which should reasonably draw curiosity is the presence of a gap in the official designations of the LB&SCR E Class tank engines, with the E1's and E3's both carrying those designations nearly 10 years before the E2's came into the picture. Considering that this designation was created by Marsh, I will admit I'm curious as to what a theoretical Marsh E2 Class would've actually looked like and how it would've performed in service, as opposed to the overblown pile of mediocrity which was actually built. Would it simply have been the E1X?
  3. Ah, the M-1. That mighty block of cheddar is a fun old thing to debate because of how much it and similar locos (pretty much just the French Heilmanns and Union Pacific turbines) attempted to so radically alter the very fundamentals of steam locomotion. 2 similar machines using steam-electric were built for the UK (both using turbines) but neither really worked very well.
  4. That much is obvious. Actually looking at Drummond's 4-6-0's indicates that an oversized firebox was 1 of several flaws, namely the 4 cylinder layout, constricted ash-pan layout, incredibly poor drafting and the use of experimental & unneeded technology, namely Drummond's water tube addition. These flaws seem to be what made the locomotives worse than the 4-4-0's they failed to replace.
  5. British thinking of the time, to put it lightly, was highly based on the success of 4-4-0's, engines which traditionally carried narrow fireboxes. I'm frankly unsure of the reason Ivatt elected for a wide firebox on the Large Atlantics, though it wouldn't exactly shock me if the GNR's American Influence predated the A1 development considering their ownership of an American 4-2-2 for a few years. Also of note is that the P8's firebox grate area of 27.98 square feet was entirely achievable with a narrow firebox designs, with the Drummond 4-6-0's carrying significantly larger firebox grates at 31.5 square feet. Now that proved to be less than ideal considering that the Drummond 4-6-0's couldn't be worked hard in the slightest, but it does show that the P8's layout has no real advantage compared to narrow grates.
  6. Is there anything preventing a large Garratt/Fairlie from doing this? Both designs are articulated and highly powerful, with the ability to run cab-first to prevent the poor crew from being smoked to death. I get that a Large Garratt is exactly what they ultimately did but I'm thinking something older, more crude and running on 4 cylinders instead of the mistake known as 6.
  7. I managed to look into this and apparently a company called RailAdventure snapped up a few to use in deliveries of other locomotives & multiple units, adding to their fleet of locos on the continent.
  8. Something that I've been silently questioning since the wagon debate is to why enclosed vans were kept to the same dimensions as their open counterparts. Whilst it seems many private wagons would've been kept to the size for the Be All-End All that is cost, there's regular instances of vans being run fast enough to warrant 4-4-2's on the trains. Surely vans for produce & other perishables should've been constructed to their postal/luggage equivalents.
  9. Starting to think Beeching was right to input such insane cost-cutting measures. I'd suggest a legislation to block the purchase of further wagons which lacked such advanced, innovative features as... vacuum brakes as a start, but the British Government's attitude to the interwar railways seems to have been "fusing them down to 4 fixed them, right?"
  10. if I'm being fair a light branch 0-6-0, even one vaguely based on one of Brighton's less impressive designs, is still more useful than a golf cart. That being said the NWR's mainline motive power has been discussed... but what of their branch line power? Ignoring him for now, something of note is the implication that Vertical Boiler locomotives were capable of working the line, revealing that it had honestly too little traffic to justify even something the size of Thomas. Any idea on what would've replaced them outside of the constraints of a story designed to entertain children?
  11. I do believe that Sigi Strasser's design for a golf cart stretches this thread to its limits. Next thing you know someone'll suggest a shortened Brighton E2 with prominent sandboxes and the rear running plate dip removed.
  12. the only solution I believe capable of solving this issue is to try and mess with designs which were simply never used en masse in Britain. Shays immediately spring to mind, but other types such as earlier Franco Crosti designs, proper overhead electrics and cab forwards (no, the Wisbech Trams and the Leader don't count) are viable options. Would an articulated loco or a Pennsy style duplex have a niche in Britain? Probably, but it speaks volumes when there's only 1 notable example each out of all the ones I suggested. I doubt they would've realistically been constructed but they might've had potential if introduced in Britain.
  13. you could always try a duplex. Though a direct offence to all things considered reasonable locomotive practice within the UK it could theoretically cram 4 cylinders into a GWR style machine
  14. the Great Western doing something as modern and advanced as electrification? Don't be preposterous, they'd sooner make a Swindon built copy of the TGOJ M3t for the work
  15. I do believe that this may be a route where an articulated locomotive may be preferred, at least compared to a 2-10-2t. A 2-6-6-4t Mallet might be worth something on the work, though other proposals could also work. That being said it'd be fairly inadequate for other work.
  16. In theory extra weight could be placed by moving the cylinders (and by extension the pilot bogie) further forward. A Somewhat similar solution was used on the front (well the rear) of the Italian GR670's
  17. Apparently they were also too heavy, which caused the management to demand them gone. However, when combined with hammer blow, they weren't any heavier on the track than the Castles they were intended to supplement
  18. to be absolutely fair (or, being honest, to play Devil's Advocate) it did technically function until the entire system completely imploded in 2020, but yeah Privatisation was done in that fashion. They didn't actually care for the future at the time and they clearly still don't care now.
  19. I do believe the LB&SCR should be treated as a somewhat special case in these situations honestly, mostly stemming from them purchasing 2 batches of barely modified Ivatt Atlantics. Visually they are slightly distinct but otherwise the untrained eye would have an extremely difficult time telling them apart, particularly as both the Brighton and Doncaster examples were later painted black. Surely this is also evidence that no such law existed against building a batch of a foreign company's locomotives, though the LB&SCR wasn't exactly competing with the GNR.
  20. I imagine so. Surely the legal system has far more important things to prosecute than 1 Railway building locomotives for another, especially as such activities are considerably niche due to the existence of dedicated locomotive builders which existed outside the niche of railways (Baldwin, Beyer Peacock, etc)
  21. I thought the Highland either didn't do it or were deliberately being unpleasant when they did but yeah that would be a convenient method of working around the law. That being said the practice of selling off unsatisfactory locos seems to have been surprisingly uncommon, as opposed to selling off elderly machines (such as that Terrier which ended up in Brazil). Does make me question as to why railways disliked letting go of their worse designs, but the Rivers might've just been a special case. Due to their weight.
  22. I don't think that such a law existed in writing, more-so that it was typically company policy. Notably the LNWR did build at least 1 locomotive for a foreign company, No.1320 for the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was constructed by a contractor but, besides a comical looking cowcatcher and bulked up cab, it was unchanged from LNWR 2-2-2-0's of the day.
  23. Something that I managed to find during my hours of meaningless research is the LMS' consideration towards buying a batch of GWR Castles (not to be confused with the Highland Castle 4-6-0's) prior to the construction of the Royal Scots. Assuming this had occurred (IIRC the GWR said no) I'm tempted to imagine the impact on LMS locomotive development, which could perhaps be huge.
  24. so the cylinders based on the Peppercorn A2's?
  25. Alright i'm sorry. I strongly stand against the use of AI art in general but I'm sorry for reacting so boldly over this based on my own assumptions, even in the face of said assumptions being either unverifiable or wrong
×
×
  • Create New...